M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 14A of the Act. The Appellant further relied on the following decisions wherein it has been held that where the Assessing Officer did not bring any evidence on record to establish that any expenditure had been incurred by assessee for earning exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D could not be made:- Walfort Share and Stock Brokers

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 14A of the Act. The Appellant further relied on the following decisions wherein it has been held that where the Assessing Officer did not bring any evidence on record to establish that any expenditure had been incurred by assessee for earning exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D could not be made:- Walfort Share and Stock Brokers

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 115JB of the Act.\n7.9 We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made\nand the documents filed. The issue arose in the case of Maxopp\nInvestment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [2018]\n91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

section 115JB of the Act.\n7.9 We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made\nand the documents filed. The issue arose in the case of Maxopp\nInvestment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [2018]\n91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the Act.\n7.9 We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made\nand the documents filed. The issue arose in the case of Maxopp\nInvestment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [2018]\n91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the Act.\n7.9 We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made\nand the documents filed. The issue arose in the case of Maxopp\nInvestment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [2018]\n91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

disallowance of Rs.62,69,78,740/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of assessee’s claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. In the return of income filed for the year under consideration, a deduction of Rs.198.49 crores was claimed by the assessee under

RANIGANJ CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,,RANIGANJ vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, ITA No.1983/Kol/2014 is partly allowed while ITA

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & Jcit Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (Pan:Aaffr 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr

301/- and no expenses were incurred for earning this dividend income. ITA Nos.1983&1984/Kol/2014-Raniganj Co-operative Bank Ltd. A.Y.2008-09& 2009-10 1 3. The AO however held that the reply of the Assessee was not satisfactory and he computed the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, as follows: “The reply of the assessee is not acceptable in as much as that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. In the instant case, the balances of many of the sundry creditors were outstanding coming from earlier years. Payments were made to some or the creditors during the year. The said payments have been accepted by the AO which means genuinity of the payments to these creditors as well

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 14A to 1% of the exempt income. Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 is thus partly allowed. 32. As regards Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the disallowance

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

301/­. (4). Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 1439/Kol/2018, relates to disallowance of compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/­ paid to M/s. Conforms Pvt. Ltd, a related company u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act without calling for Remand Report. (5). Grounds raised by the assesse in ITA No. 938/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11, relates to action

THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

301/­. (4). Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 1439/Kol/2018, relates to disallowance of compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/­ paid to M/s. Conforms Pvt. Ltd, a related company u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act without calling for Remand Report. (5). Grounds raised by the assesse in ITA No. 938/Kol/2018, for A.Y 2010­11, relates to action

ABDUL HAI,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 1759/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Hai................................…………………………………………………………………………..Appellant Prop. National Traders, Raha Lane, Asansol, Burdwan – 713 301 [Pan: Aanph 9226 J] I.T.O. Ward 2(1) Asansol,...................……………………………………………...................Respondent Burdwan – 713 304 Appearances By: Shri Debanuj Basu, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Asansol Dated 01.07.2014. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground No. 1 Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 18,232/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Difference In The Balance Of Sundry Creditors By Treating The Same As Bogus.

disallowances made by the A.O. under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) and the Ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order directed the A.O. to verify the same and allow appropriate relief to the assessee on such verification. In my opinion, the assessee therefore cannot be said to have any grievance on these issues and even the learned counsel

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

section 115JB of the Act.\n7.9 We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made\nand the documents filed. The issue arose in the case of Maxopp\nInvestment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [2018]\n91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402\nITR 640 (SC)/[2018] 301

INDIA GLYCOLS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.114/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) India Glycols Limited Vs. Jcit, Range-12, Kolkata

section 14A(2) r.w.r. 8D of the I.T Ruleswas invoked. Reliance in this respect was placed by the ld AO, on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Champion Commercial Co. Lt,. in ITA No.644/Kol/2012 wherein the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata had relied on the observation of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in the case

SRI BIRENDRA NATH MONDAL,ASANSOL vs. ITO, WD-2(2), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under section 40A(3) of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 20, 2017. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 20th day of December, 2017 Copies

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

disallowance of ₹ 5,30,91,623/- on account of non-deduction of tax u/s 195 of the Act r.w.s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. 33. The assessee during the year has incurred certain expenses in foreign currency for ₹23,20,18,199/- only. The expenses in foreign currency include the following expenses:- i) Inspection fee ii) Advertisement in magazine

BIPIN KR. GUPTA PROP: M/S BALAJI ALANKAR,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 39, MIDNAPORE, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the assessee’s case on the issue under consideration, the ld. Counsel